By Kevin Collison
Confronted by overwhelming testimony from opponents, the KCATA board voted 6-2 Wednesday to reject a tax incentive request for a 300-unit apartment development proposed for Main and Armour.
The development proposed by Chicago-based Mac Properties had been endorsed for a 15-year tax abatement by the authority’s development arm last week, but the full board rejected the incentives when 20 people testified against it and no one spoke in favor.
It was opposed by the Kansas City School District, which alleged it would divert future tax revenues, and by Midtown residents, organized by KC Tenants, who said the project would contribute to gentrification .
Opponents also accused Mac of being a “slumlord” that failed to adequately care for its properties.
“By approving this tax abatement, the KCATA is saying they approve of Mac’s behavior and that funding our city’s essential services is less important than padding the pockets of development companies,” said Katie Pummill, a resident.
Mac’s application for a property tax abatement from the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority came as a surprise to many.
The developer had been turned down a year ago when it asked the City Council to provide a $10.5 million cash subsidy in surplus tax-increment financing funds to help provide affordable housing in the project.
That proposal also was opposed by KC Tenants, an affordable housing activist group.
Mac then returned to the city in October with a revised plan without affordable housing that no longer included an incentive request.
But it turned out, while Mac was not asking for city tax incentives it had turned to RideKC Development Corp. to seek a tax break.
RideKC, an arm of the KCATA, handles the agency’s START program which is intended to incentivize transit-oriented development.
“This fits our policy,” Brien Starner, RideKC Development president, told the board.
“The facility itself is a $100 million investment. It would represent 300 units and it has a reduced parking ratio which is good from the standpoint of TOC (Transit Oriented Communities).”
The opponents organized by KC Tenants claimed Mac had been gentrifying the Armour Boulevard corridor and rents expected to be charged at what Mac calls its 1 W. Armour development would be unaffordable.
Mac has said rents at 1 W. Armour were expected to be similar to those at its newest apartment development at Armour and Troost. Studios and one-bedrooms there range from $1,300-$1,800, and two bedrooms go for $1,800 to $2,400.
“Most people who rely on transit are likely to be low income,” said Jakob Benedetti. “Having these be completely market rate and above and are going to be getting tax incentives for being TOD makes no sense at all.”
Kathleen Pointer, a policy analyst for the school district who also is on the board of KC Tenants, said KC schools opposed the proposal’s incentive request because it would not provide the full tax value of the project for 15 years.
The development however, would have paid the current tax value of the property to schools along with the incremental 25 percent increase until it would go fully on the property tax rolls after 15 years.
“Giving the project a tax break of 75 percent for up to 15 years especially when the rent rates are more than $1,600 for a one-bedroom apartment is an inappropriate ask from Kansas City kids and their teachers,” Pointer said.
She also criticized RideKC Development Corp. for failing to mandate an independent financial analysis of whether the project needed the incentives to be viable. A third party analysis is required by city development agencies considering incentive requests.
Mac’s 1 West Armour proposal had been endorsed by the City Plan Commission and approved by the City Council. It calls for the renovation of the existing US Bank building at Main and Armour and construction of three, 10-story apartment buildings.
The project is proposed next to the planned streetcar stop at Main and Armour and the developer said it was an ideal transit-oriented development.
Peter Cassel, Mac director of community development, also said the project would be built on parking lots and not displace any residents.
“We’re not talking about One Light and Two Light here, we’re not talking about the fancy new buildings down in the Plaza, this is workforce housing in Midtown,” he said.
The project also had support from Midtown KC Now, a property and business group, which said it fulfilled the city’s plans to increase population density in the area.
The plan had been endorsed by the City Plan Commission and approved by the City Council last month.
Before voting to deny the incentive request, the KCATA board turned down a motion on a 5-3 vote that would have delayed consideration a month so the authority could obtain additional information.
After the denial, Cassel was noncommittal about whether his firm would continue pursuing the project.
“I don’t know what’s next,” he said. “We respect the process and appreciate everybody’s time and consideration.”
Cassel did defend Mac’s record maintaining its apartment projects.
Over the last 15 years, Mac had renovated dozens of buildings along Armour between Troost and Broadway, and built several new ones. It’s developed more than 2,000 new apartments and the occupancy rate is 94 percent.
“We’re incredibly proud of all our work on Armour Boulevard and hopefully people will continue to come look at us,” he said.
Don’t miss any downtown news, sign up for our weekly CityScene KC email review here.
I am elated that this proposal for outsider development at Main and Armour was rejected. Maybe Mac’s ( Mr Peter Cassel’s) next plan for this area will not include tax payer incentives and instead use private money as they originally stated. Congratulations to the people!
I don’t understand your position. Honestly, the proposal provided current city tax revenue and that would go to much higher tax revenue in 15 years. Those that own modest properties in Midtown want to see this area finally thrive. It’s a shame that petty, cookie-cutter anti-development positions risk thwarting the otherwise great potential for a vibrate midtown.
I’m amazed that 20 people can thwart development in this town.
I hope Mac comes back with another proposal, but it’s understandable if they don’t. I’m sure there are easier cities to work with.
Disappointing that a vocal minority of NIMBYs can thwart progress. KC tenants and neighborhood group opposition is disappointing but not surprising; the school district’s irrational position does surprise me a bit. They would rather keep their revenues the same indefinitely than take an immediate 25% increase and much greater revenue 15 years from now? Bizarre. I suppose they are gambling, hoping the project will proceed anyway and they get all the revs immediately but could end up being a pretty dumb own-goal if they project is scuttled.
The anti-MAC animosity of some in the neighborhood–to be fair, a minority, I think but a fairly large minority–has always confused me. I remember when Armor was all section 8 with hookers and junkies cruising the street day and night. I guess some in the neighborhood are nostalgic for the old days.
Comments are closed.